Delhi High Court

Renubala Pradhan vs Cbi on 29 January, 2020

$~18
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision: 29th January, 2020
+      CRL.M.C. 2251/2017
       RENUBALA PRADHAN                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with
                                         Mr. Amit Tiwari, Mr. Aditya Raj and
                                         Mr. Adarsh Verma, Advocates
                          versus
       CBI                                                  ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Mridul Jain, Spl. PP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Present petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

quashing of summoning order dated 27.07.2016 passed by learned Special

Judge (P.C. Act) (CBI) 06, New Delhi and proceedings emanating

therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information, respondent

registered an FIR bearing RC No.04(A)/2014 dated 12.06.2014 under

Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against petitioner and some

unknown persons. Pursuant to completion of investigation, respondent filed

charge sheet concluding that no offence has been committed by petitioner,

who consequently was kept in column 12 therein. Investigation revealed

commission of offence as mentioned above by Mr. Subodh Mishra, Mr.

Rajesh Agnihotri, the Director of M/s Vandana Air Travels Pvt. Ltd and the

company. However, learned Special Judge while rejecting the closure

report, took cognizance under Section 120-B IPC read with Section

420/467/468/471/474 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, against petitioner also besides other

charge sheeted persons

3. It is submitted by counsel for Petitioner that she is a social worker and

worked as President, Zila Parishad, Ganjam District, Odisha from 1997-

2002. Thereafter, she worked as Member of Zila Parishad, Ganjam Distt.,

Odisha from 2002-2007. In April, 2008, she was elected Member of

Parliament, Rajya Sabha from State of Odisha under candidature of Biju

Janta Dal. During her tenure in Rajya Sabha, she has been Member of

several committees. Petitioner's tenure in the Rajya Sabha expired in April,

2014. Being Member of Parliament and member of several important

parliamentary committees, she has played significant role in development of

the country in general and her state in particular. She is recognized in her

state as a leader having deep roots in society. She is seen as a political

worker with dignity, integrity, honesty and intellect.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that

every Member of Rajya Sabha is entitled to 34 free air travel journeys

during one financial year and also unlimited air travels for official work.

Out of these 34 journeys, spouse or companion of a member is entitled to

travel eight alone journeys in a year. For reimbursement of expenditure

incurred by a member upon said air travels, the Member has to submit TA

Claims enclosing details of journey in prescribed arrival/departure report,

air-tickets and boarding passes. E-tickets submitted by members are to be

counter-signed by them. Concerned department after scrutiny and procedure

established by law, approves the TA claims and reimburses the amount by

directly crediting in bank account of the member.

5. In terms of the guidelines/protocol, the Members of Parliament have

privileges as protocol at the airport by virtue of which they are not required

to stand for their ticket and boarding passes required for performing their

journey. Companion family members travelling with petitioner also enjoy

these privileges. Formalities of obtaining boarding passes for passenger and

his companion are done by protocol official with assistance of travel agent.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the nature of work

requires petitioner to frequently travel and visit several places. She had to

perform several functions including booking of air tickets etc. for which she

required assistance of her Private Secretary. She had been elected as

Member of Parliament for the first time and had no social circle in Delhi.

Upon enquiry from fellow member, petitioner learnt that one Mr. Subodh

Mishra who is working in the parliament since 1992 has in depth knowledge

about all procedural aspect and handles travelling arrangement of many

Members of Parliament. Accordingly, Mr. Subodh Mishra approached

petitioner and informed her that he will be handling her travelling issues and

claims easily as he is aware of all procedural formalities. He informed

petitioner that his son and son-in-law are working in a travel agency namely

M/s. Vandana Air Travels Pvt. Ltd. He further informed that he arranges all

air tickets of several members and also looks after their claims from

concerned Houses of Parliament. Believing upon his representation and also

on the fact that he was already managing travelling issues of several

members, petitioner also asked him to look after her tickets and claims from

Rajya Sabha. He, thereafter, started arranging tickets through Mr. Rajesh

Agnihotri who was Director of M/s Vandana Air Travels Pvt. Ltd. He also

got his daughter Ms. Lalita Kumar officially appointed as PS of petitioner.

In a routine manner, petitioner after performing several journeys, used to

handover bunch of boarding passes to Mr. Subodh Mishra. The tickets were

sent through e-mails by Mr. Rajesh Agnihotri to him for the purpose of

submitting TA claim subsequent to journey performed by petitioner.

Necessary documentation for submitting TA bills were filled by Mr. Subodh

Mishra. Petitioner, upon presentation of TA claims by Mr. Subodh Mishra,

bonafidely signed the TA bills. Thereafter, he used to submit the claim with

the concerned department of Rajya Sabha Secretariat and pursued the same

in case of any objections. Concerned department after approving the claim

credited amount directly in account of petitioner. Said Mr. Subodh Mishra,

thereafter, obtained cheques from petitioner for payment to Vandana Air

Travels Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner has paid all the money reimbursed to her to Mr.

Subodh Mishra for payment to the travel company. Some of the cheques

issued were account payee while some of self as requested by Mr. Subodh

Mishra. He withdrew money from petitioner's account and misappropriated

the same without knowledge and consent of petitioner. He inserted forged

inflated tickets in the TA claims along with other genuine tickets and

obtained signatures of petitioner. However, Petitioner had no knowledge of

submission of forged tickets in the TA claims. She also had no occasion to

raise suspicion as the amount spent on travelling was reimbursed to her by

the Rajya Sabha.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for CBI submits that as per

allegations during the period 2012, the then Member of Parliament, entered

into criminal conspiracy with unknown employees of M/s. Vandana Air

Travels Pvt. Ltd. and claimed inflated reimbursement bills for four

companion tickets amounting to ₹1,62,459/- from the Pay and Accounts

Office, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. The information revealed that

concerned 4 tickets were purchased by petitioner under Companion Free

Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CFS) after making payment of ₹5632/-. It

is further alleged that petitioner on the basis of false tickets claimed excess

amount of ₹1,56,827/- from Government of India.

8. Further submission is that FIR provides details of alleged false claims

made by petitioner under CFS during the period 2011-2013, which are as

follows:-

Sr.        Name of      Main Ticket      CFS Ticket    Fare claimed    Actual     Sector & Date
No.          the                                          for the       Fare
          Companion                                     companion       Paid
                                                           ticket
1.        N. Pradhan   0982067201204   0982105160886   41985/-        3613/-      Bhubneshwar-
                                                                                  Delhi 27.11.12
2.        Mr. Vishu    982066222546    0982104795783   40158/-        673/-       Bhubneshwar-
                                                                                  Delhi 21.10.12





 3.         Mr. Ranjan     0982066222548   0982104795778     40158/-         673/-       Bhubneshwar-
           Nehra                                                                        Delhi 22.10.12
4.         Mr. Lisha      0982066222548   0982104795772     40158/-         673/-       Bhubneshwar-
                                                                                        Delhi 22.10.12
                                                 Total      162459/-      5632/-
                                                 Loss             1,56,827/-

9. Learned counsel for C.B.I. submits that pursuant to registration of

FIR, respondent conducted investigation. Prima facie, it was revealed that

aforesaid 4 e-tickets amongst several submitted along with TA claims by the

petitioner during the period 2012, were issued under CFS and formed basis

for excessive reimbursement. Aforesaid e-tickets were false. It was also

revealed that during the period 2011-2013, petitioner had also claimed

excess fair on e-tickets on further 06 companion free scheme ticket, 01

frequent flyer passenger ticket and 15 coupon tickets from the Rajya Sabha

Secretariat in her TA claims, in addition to the 4 tickets mentioned in FIR.

Details of those 26 tickets are as follows:

     Sr. No.            Forged Ticket      Type of Ticket        Fare     Actual Fare      Excess
                                                               Claimed       Paid         amount
                                                             from Rajya                   claimed
                                                                Sabha
     1.        0982104795772               CFS              40158/-       673/-
     2.        0982104795778               CFS              40158/-       673/-
     3.        0982104795783               CFS              40158/-       673/-
     4.        0982105160886               CFS              41985/-       3613/-
     5.        0982105542211               CFS              42204/-       3832/-
     6.        0982105542174               CFS              41985/-       3613/-
     7.        0982103220963               CFS              23023/-       454/-
     8.        092103674165                CFS              61745/-       673/-
     9.        0982103623259               CFS              49638/-       13007/-
     10.       0982103589795               CFS              36631/-       891/-
     11.       098210477663                FFP              42204/-       892/-





 12.    0984215551928           Coupon        42143/-       25210/-
13.    0984215497477           Coupon        42250/-       23626/-
14.    0984215497522           Coupon        43350/-       23626/-
15.    0984215456415           Coupon        35968/-       40103/-
16.    0984215457558           Coupon        35968/-       23602/-
17.    0984215459973           Coupon        36631/-       22072/-
18.    0984215459974           Coupon        36631/-       22072/-
19.    0984215462140           Coupon        36631/-       23934/-
20.    0984215462485           Coupon        39957/-       23934/-
21.    0984215462489           Coupon        39957/-       23934/-
22.    0984215494321           Coupon        39957/-       21010/-
23.    0984215494232           Coupon        39957/-       21010/-
24.    0984215494008           Coupon        39957/-       21010/-
25.    0984215448403           Coupon        35195/-       23504/-
26.    0984215449404           Coupon        35526/-       23504/-
                                             10,39,967/-   3,91,145/-     6,48,822/-

10. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that petitioner paid only a sum

of Rs.3,91,145/- to Air India against aforesaid 26 tickets while she claimed

an amount of Rs. 10,39,967/- thereby causing loss of Rs. 6,48,822/- to the

Rajya Sabha.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused material

on record.

12. It is not in dispute that Air India vide circular dated 03.10.2011

launched Companion Free Scheme for domestic travels. The scheme was

initially valid upto 31.03.2012 which was subsequently extended till

31.05.2013. In terms of the scheme, passengers buying full ticket were

entitled to have one free ticket for their companion provided latter is either

spouse, child or parent. The main ticket/paid ticket was to be issued by the

travel agent and companion ticket was to be issued only by Air India Office.

The main ticket bears a specific endorsement with name of family member

for issuance of companion ticket. Air India requires only the number of

main ticket for issuance of companion ticket, so as to enable it to cross-

check the endorsement on the main ticket for the companion ticket. In terms

of the policy, no authorization was required from main ticket holder to

obtain a companion free ticket. Similarly, frequent flyer scheme and coupon

ticket scheme was also examined by respondent.

13. It is also not in dispute that other co-accused were booked in a

different FIR, who were similarly placed. Out of the 6 accused, CBI filed

closure report against petitioner herein and one Brajesh Pathak. However,

said report has not been accepted by trial Court. Being aggrieved, Brajesh

Pathak filed petition before this Court for quashing of the summoning order

and emanating proceedings thereto vide Crl.M.C. 1127/2015. Same was

allowed vide judgment dated 11.04.2017. Another accused namely

Mohmood Asad Madani filed Crl.M.C. 4956/2017 titled 'Mahmood Asad

Madani v. CBI'. Same was decided by this Court vide order dated

December 11, 2019 thereby quashing FIR therein and emanating

proceedings thereto.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that in 'Brajesh Pathak vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation', it was alleged that "during the period 2011 to

2013, the petitioner therein entered into a criminal conspiracy with known

private persons and claimed wrongly inflated reimbursement for eight

companion tickets amounting to Rs. 2,19,887/- from the Pay and Accounts

Office, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi but had only paid an amount of

Rs. 10,499/- for the said eight companion tickets, thereby he unduly claimed

an excess amount of Rs. 2,09,338/- from the Government of India. The

respondent CBI filed charge- sheet on 02.01.2015 with the conclusion that

investigation revealed commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471 and 474 IPC against Sh. Rajesh Agnihotri, Director of M/s Vandana Air

Travels Pvt. Ltd. and that no offence has been committed by the petitioner,

who was kept in column 12 therein. Thereafter, an application was moved

by respondent CBI through Deputy Superintendent of Police marking of the

matter to Magisterial Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Special

Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated

20.02.2015 rejected the application filed by the respondent CBI and took

cognizance against the petitioner therein for the offences punishable under

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468,471 and 474 IPC and Section 13(2) read with

Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and issued

summons to the petitioner, Rajesh Agnihotri and M/s Vandana Travels

Private Limited. Aggrieved by the said impugned summoning order dated

20.02.2015 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioner filed

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and all

proceedings emanating therefrom.

15. While allowing the above mentioned petition vide order dated

11.04.2017, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

"28. It is apparent from the charge-sheet filed by the respondent CBI that the petitioner through his Private Secretary/ Private Assistant submitted his e- tickets and boarding passes and on the basis of etickets and boarding passes the claim amount was reimbursed by Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

29. Nothing is emerging on the record or investigation made by the respondent CBI that price of air tickets amounting to Rs.2,19,887/- has not been paid by the petitioner to the Travel Agency/ there is no any such complaint pending qua the present petitioner which otherwise means the amount of Rs. 2,19,887/- has been paid by petitioner to the Travel Agency. The petitioner has got reimbursed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,19,887/- from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat after depositing the air tickets and the boarding passes.

30. The whole dispute is arising out of the non- matching of the amount of the tickets sold at the counter of Air India and the tickets sold through Travel Agency.

31. There is nothing on the record to show on which date Air India sold the last tickets to its customer for its destination to determine the actual cost of the ticket. It is a general practice which has been noticed that air tickets at counter are not available as the same has been sold to the Consolidator long time back to avoid the risk of loss due to the existing stiff competition among various Airlines. Once, the tickets are sold to the Consolidator and further to the Travel Agency, the Travel Agency further sells the tickets to customer looking into its own business interest until and unless there is a regulation on behalf of Government for restricting the higher price of Travel Agency.

32. There is nothing coming on the record that there is any domestic/Government/Air India regulation restricting the higher price of the Travel Agency.

33. Therefore, in absence of such regulation, even if the prosecution case taken to be gospel truth still do not constitute prima facie case qua the present petitioner in absence of any evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet filed by the respondent CBI. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR (1992) SC 604, which has laid down certain category for quashing of the proceedings, the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:-

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;"

34. In the light of aforesaid discussions, the cognizance taken qua the present petitioner without

taking recourse under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation is hereby set aside.

35. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 20.02.2015 and subsequent proceedings qua against the petitioner in CC No. 01/2015 bearing RC No. 3(A)/2014/CBI/AC-III/N.D. pending before the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi are hereby quashed to the extent of the role of the present petitioner in FIR No. 3(A)/2014/CBI/AC-III/ND."

16. Similar was the case in Mahmood Asad Madani vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11809, decided on 11.12.2019 by this Court, wherein observed as under:

"31. It is pertinent to mention here that in case of Brajesh Pathak, the CBI had filed closure report and the same was not accepted by the Trial Court and being aggrieved, the Brajesh Pathak challenged the same before this court and this court quashed the FIR with emanating proceedings thereto. The order has attained finality.

32. In view of the facts recorded above, the facts and evidence on record are same and similar and FIR was filed against Brajesh Pathak and Ms.Renu Bala Pradhan and the petitioner herein, however, in two cases, the CBI has filed the closure report, the same were not accepted by the Trial Court and in the present case, the chargesheet is filed and the case is pending for trial. Two parameters cannot be accepted.

33. I am conscious about the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chilakamarthi

Venkateswarlu & Anr. (Supra) vide order dated 31.07.2019 whereby "the power to quash the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted as true."

34. However, in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.: (2002) 1 SCC 241 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating." Thus, it is held that the essential ingredient for committing an offence under section 420 IPC, "mens rea" is an essential ingredient.

35. In case of C.K. Jaffer Sharief vs. State (CBI): (2013) 1 SCC 205 whereby held that "dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. To make a person criminally accountable it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively."

36. In case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayana Rao: (2012) 9 SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are

alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence."

17. Moreover, in case of Ramesh Rajagopal vs. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd.:

(2016) 6 SCC 310, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in the absence

of any act in pursuance of the website by which he has deceived any person

fraudulently or dishonestly, induced any one to deliver any property to any

person, we find that it is not possible to attribute any intention of cheating

which is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 468."

18. The petitioner being similarly placed with Brajesh Pathak and

Mahmood Asad Madani, I am of the view that in the present case there is no

conspiracy established on the part of petitioner, thus, there is absence of

mens rea in the present case. Though excess amount has been claimed but

that is due to inadvertence on the part of PA of the petitioner. However, she

has not claimed excess amount at all with ill intention. Therefore, I hereby